Gpl?

[penguain]

can one realese an image created under the GPL,LGPL,or FDL??
if he/she also releases the equivelent of the source ie. *.raw???

[Brunellus]

I don't think the GPL is really intended to cover things of this nature. You might want to look at the Creative Commons licenses to see which combination of rights works for your use.

[Kvark]

GPL and LGPL are designed specifically for computer software while GFDL is designed specifically for text documentation. So none of those are suitable for images.

Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/) have licences that follows kinda the same spirit as GNU's licences but are more suitable for content such as images.

[penguain]

thanks so much

[BWF89]

The GPL isn't just a software licence. It can be used for movies, pictures, books, or any other kind of media.

[Brunellus]

The GPL isn't just a software licence. It can be used for movies, pictures, books, or any other kind of media.
what do you consider "source" for a movie or photograph? If I license a photograph under the GPL, and I take it with a film camera, must I make the negative available? Or will a copy negative be sufficient?

[Jucato]

Stallman doesn't like the Creative Commons, right? It's a whole new license I have to learn about.

Anyway, if GPL was meant for software only, then why do things in KDE-look.org have those "License: GPL" things? All I'm sure about is that FDL is for documents.

EDIT: probably GPL covers digital media as well?

[Sheinar]

Even though a lot of people use the GPL for more than just software, it really is meant to be a software license and nothing more. There are much more suitable licenses for pictures/music/video and everything else.

If I remember correctly, Stallman's main gripe with the Creative Commons wasn't actually the Creative Commons, but the people who just call every CC license "the Creative Commons", because of the huge variety of different licenses with different reasons for existing. Of course I'm sure he also has gripes with many of the specific CC licenses.

[majikstreet]

make your own license!

You can take the .xcf or .psd of my image, do whatever the hell you want, and distribute it however the hell you want, even charge for it as long as you credit me for making the original image.

[mstlyevil]

Just copyright it and make it available for public use. The copyright will still protect you as the owner even if you make the image public.

[jdong]

Just copyright it and make it available for public use. The copyright will still protect you as the owner even if you make the image public.
But that doesn't capture the essence of the GPL; that's more of a BSD license equivalent.

The GPL is designed to be benevolently contagious, infecting derivatives with Open Source.

[BWF89]

what do you consider "source" for a movie or photograph? If I license a photograph under the GPL, and I take it with a film camera, must I make the negative available? Or will a copy negative be sufficient?
I didn't say that is a perfect fit for non software use. I just said that it CAN be used for that.